Until
now I have put off weighing in on this subject until Tim Cook, CEO of Apple,
filed his brief in response to the tyranny of the Autocratic Government of the
United States. Make note of Ben
Franklin’s Statement above.

There
are laws for citizens, and there are laws for law enforcement and security
agencies. They simply have
to find another way.The Federal Government
cannot violate the rights of all Americans in the process of obtaining a little
security. Keep in mind, once the foot
of the enemy or the government is in the door, they become one in the same, and
one can no longer close the door.

In
addition, what constitutional authority gives the courts the power to make or
circumvent the rights of citizens? None!

Appleearlier today filed its formal legal
response laying out why it is refusing to help the FBI hack into the
iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists.

Not
surprisingly, the arguments Apple makes to the court are essentially the same
arguments it’s been making in the press over the last week.

“This is not a case about
one isolated iPhone,” the filing begins. “Rather, this case is about the Department
of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that
Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies
like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of
millions of individuals around the globe.”

Indeed,
Tim Cook himself has said that “Congress, and not the courts, should be the
ones deciding the perilous issue of mobile encryption as it pertains to issues
of national security.”

Speaking
to this point, Apple argues that the government in this case consciously chose
not to enhance its investigatory power via legislation, instead opting to have
the courts do all of the dirty work. Not only that, But Apple even takes the
government to task for attempting to use ‘terrorism’ as a catchphrase designed
to play on the public’s emotions. Again I refer you to Ben Franklin.

Apple
also writes that the idea that hacking into the iPhone would be just a one-time
thing unique to the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5c is preposterous. To this
end, Apple writes that the government has already filed “multiple
other applications for similar orders.”

With
respect to the slippery slope argument that Apple has championed in recent
days, the filing argues:

For example, if Apple can
be forced to write code in this case to bypass security features and create new
accessibility, what is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write
code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the
video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location
services to track the phone’s user?

Nothing my friend!

As to the legal basis for
Apple’s motion, which seeks to vacate the court’s order that it must help the
FBI, Apple writes that what the FBI is aiming to achieve here is unprecedented.

No court can’ or’ has ever
granted the government power to force companies like Apple to weaken its
security systems to facilitate the government’s access to private individuals’
information. The All Writs Act does not
support such sweeping use of judicial power, and the First and Fifth Amendments
to the Constitution forbid it.

What’s
more, Apple writes that because software is akin to speech, the government
shouldn’t be able to compel Apple to write software it objects to.

The
demand violates Apple’s First Amendment rights against compelled speech and
viewpoint discrimination. Apple wrote code for its operating system that
reflects Apple’s strong view about consumer security and privacy. By forcing
Apple to write software that would undermine those values, the government seeks
to compel Apple’s speech and to force Apple to express the government’s
viewpoint on security and privacy instead of its own.

The government’s demand
also violates Apple’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from arbitrary
deprivation of its liberties in that it would conscript Apple to develop
software that undermines the security mechanisms of its own products.

Apple
also articulates that complying with the government’s request would be unduly
burdensome insofar as it would require them to effectively write a completely
new operating system.

The
compromised operating system that the government demands would require
significant resources and effort to develop. Although it is difficult to
estimate, because it has never been done before, the design, creation,
validation, and deployment of the software likely would necessitate six to ten
Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their
time for a minimum of two weeks, and likely as many as four weeks. Members of
the team would include engineers from Apple’s core operating system group, a
quality assurance engineer, a project manager, and either a document writer or
a tool writer.

In
addition, Apple would need to both develop and prepare detailed documentation
for the above protocol to enable the FBI to build a brute-force tool that is
able to interface with the device to input passcode attempts, or design,
develop and prepare documentation for such a tool itself. Further, if the
tool is utilized remotely (rather than at a secure Apple facility), Apple will
also have to develop procedures to encrypt, validate, and input into the device
communications from the FBI. This entire development process would need to
be logged and recorded in case Apple’s methodology is ever questioned, for
example in court by a defense lawyer for anyone charged in relation to the
crime.

Once the new custom
operating system is created and validated, it would need to be deployed on to
the subject device, which would need to be done at an Apple facility. And if
the new operating system has to be destroyed and recreated each time a new
order is issued, the burden will multiply.

As
the legal battle between the FBI and Apple continues to rage on. Apple, thanks to the tyranny of government, is
reportedly already working on iPhones that they themselveswouldn’t
never be able to hack.

THE
BOTTOM LINE:This my friend it exactly what the
Framers foresaw when they designed the constitution, and in a (Con Con)
included the first ten Amendments. The
U.S. Constitution, is not just an old irrelevant document. It’s the Central Autocracy that is pushing
that agenda.

Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this
article to everyone on your email list.
It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.